Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

bunniestudios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 357 posts

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#311

Post by robbrit »

Hmmm, I wonder what the long-term effects of this will be if the tariffs stay in place for a while. 25% is a huge bump.

I can see two major effects:

1) Lots of the "last screw" manufacturing will move to other countries and then imported into the US. Due to IP concerns it will probably move to countries with good IP protections such as the EU, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. I can't say much for the other countries but it would be a boon to Canada (longer term anyway, it will be painful in the short term) providing diversification from the natural resource economy that Canada has too much of, and an incentive for the top talent to stop coming down to the US for the most interesting jobs.

2) Except in the case where US production is more than 25% more expensive than offshore, the domestic US industry for these components and raw materials will grow (this is probably Trump's goal). The "last screw" manufacturing that stays within the US will be much more expensive due to the higher input costs.

Since I am inclined to believe that the quantity of talent/expertise for high-tech manufacturing is higher outside the US than in, the effect of #1 will be much larger than the effect of #2. But I could be wrong, the US has pretty fantastic network effects and world-class talent, I wouldn't discount their ability to innovate just yet.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#312

Post by throwawayjava »

workinthehead wrote: post #303
arcticbull wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what you mean by "EU" - I do understand that EU member state has a specific definition that Switzerland does not meet. What most people think of as "EU" is actually an overlapping patchwork of agreements many of which Switzerland does participate in. True, they're not part of the Euro zone. They're part of the Schengen area (common immigration zone), the EFTA (free trade area), signed the EEA, and adopt…

I would really like to see a source for your claim that "most people" think of the "EU" as something other than the European Union. Seriously, what's with all the weasel words? Switzerland is not an EU member. End of.

(OP) Switzerland is not a member of the EU. Do you see any claim in my post that Switzerland is a member of the EU?

Nonetheless, Switzerland has a relationship with the rest of the EU that is analogous to the relationship between a small, dense US state and the rest of the USA.

Nonetheless, Zurich has a relationship with the rest of the EU that is analogous to the relationship between NYC and the rest of the USA.

This issue of whether Switzerland is properly considered "part of" the EU regardless of its membership status seems like quite the diversion from my actual point and is not at all relevant to the parallel I was drawing.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#313

Post by mistermann »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #306
mistermann wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(This isn't directed at you, just thought I'd put it here....) I care about what is good for everyone - employers, employees, the overall country, and the overall world (all these same people in other countries), on a long term sustainable basis . Whenever one reads these threads, rarely does one encounter someone who's doing anything other than talking their book, or supporting their personal ideology of "how it sho…

i'm not sure i agree with everything you wrote, but i do share this sense that US policy has tried to optimize for some over-simplified, short-term, dollar-maximizing measurement. it's not clear that we've been optimizing for something that's actually connected to what makes people happy and satisfied with life. some people absolutely need to be able to say "We're number one! We're number one!" but other people would…

> but other people would be happier to live in country number 17 if it meant they had a steady job with decent working conditions, reasonable health care, more predictability and a lower crime neighborhood.

This is pretty much the essence of what I'm getting at, and to me is what post-secondary educated people on both the left and right seem to be very strongly opposed to on an ideological basis (but for completely different reasons I suspect), as seen in comments like: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17346684

It worries me that almost no one seems to be thinking about the range of possibilities that might lie at the end of this outsource & optimize for GDP/efficiency/profit, rinse and repeat ad infinitum approach to the economy, and that some of the possible outcomes might actually be negative. It's almost like there's this religious belief in the West that negative consequences aren't even possible. Are people's memories really this short?

Or maybe I'm the one that's wrong. I'm more than willing to listen to anyone explain to me at length how success for everyone is inevitable as long as we have unrestricted free trade, but all anyone seems to have to offer is their own personal take on what "a" path to success would look like, which is typically not much more than a vague theory resting on the assumption that recent history is all that's worth paying attention to.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#314

Post by s73v3r_ »

echotango wrote: post #282
defertoreptar wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> very clearly is not doing so in good faith. I'm confused. What do you mean by that?

He means he disagrees with the people he downvotes. Afterall, anyone acting in good faith would agree with him lol

No, not in the least. But persons who can't even be counted on to not make up their own facts are clearly not acting in good faith.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#315

Post by s73v3r_ »

defertoreptar wrote: post #279
s73v3r_ wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we just don't want to waste our time arguing with someone who very clearly is not doing so in good faith.

> very clearly is not doing so in good faith. I'm confused. What do you mean by that?

There is no trade deficit with Canada. At all. Claiming there is one, in the face of all facts to the contrary, is not having a discussion in good faith.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#317

Post by defertoreptar »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #315
defertoreptar wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> very clearly is not doing so in good faith. I'm confused. What do you mean by that?

There is no trade deficit with Canada. At all. Claiming there is one, in the face of all facts to the contrary, is not having a discussion in good faith.

So instead of enlightening me with these facts, you accuse me of acting in bad faith? I was under the impression that there was a trade deficit with Canada given the evidence I have found: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html .

jeromegv said there was no trade deficit with Canada, so I assumed good faith and responded to him/her under the pretense that they were referring to the "aggregate sales surplus" figure that has been in the news recently.

Can you please help me understand how I have ignored facts and acted in bad faith? I would like to fix this problem, but I do not understand where to begin.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#318

Post by dragonwriter »

defertoreptar wrote: post #113
ska wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you believe that the US is a victim of protectionism in these countries without having protectionism of it's own? That's a pretty hard position to back with evidence. For example US farm subsidies are significant and supply management is common in many areas, but the rhetoric around Canadian dairy supply management recently has been amplified far beyond even it's wildest possible impact. And this with a country wi…

> So you believe that the US is a victim of protectionism in these countries without having protectionism of it's own? That's a pretty hard position to back with evidence. You need look no further than the USA's gaping trade deficits.

> You need look no further than the USA's gaping trade deficits.

A “trade deficit” is just another name for a capital inflow surplus.

If you want a smaller trade deficit, reduce the degree to which you systematically favor capital.

Of course, what policymakers usually justify based on a trade deficit is increased support for domestically headquartered firms and other supports for capital invested in the country, which results in more net foreign investment and higher trade deficit, which is used to support more capital-serving policy, which results in more capital inflows, etc.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#319

Post by dragonwriter »

ajmurmann wrote: post #152
defertoreptar wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you believe that the US is a victim of protectionism in these countries without having protectionism of it's own? That's a pretty hard position to back with evidence. You need look no further than the USA's gaping trade deficits.

Maybe that's happening because the US isn't competitive enough?

It's happening because the US is very competitive as a place to invest capital. Trade deficit can be visualized as people in the US selling capital and using the proceeds to buy goods; the reality is more complex and has more intermediate steps, but that's the net effect.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#320

Post by s2g »

anon23423532 wrote: post #266
selectodude wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You posted three articles, two of which don't have China in them even once (I crtl+F'd China, nothing), and the third which is titled "China may use Canada as 'Trojan horse' into US market", an op-ed written by Danny Lam, who if you google may as well not exist. I cannot find him anywhere. muh russia! You should be proud to be paid for this idiocy, because otherwise you'd be that gullible and that would be tragic.

I cited a direct NAFTA bylaw, that a product can be considered Mexican or Canadian if 50-60% of it is sourced from those countries, hence China doesn't need to be mentioned directly in the article. Take a trip to Vancouver sometime and tell me there isn't a large Chinese presence. The fact you assume anyone you don't agree with or who provides information contrary to mainstream opinion a bot is the sign of a stunted…

> tell me there isn't a large Chinese presence.

What does this have to do with anything?

Could do doesn't mean are doing.

Post reply on HN